Mr. HUGHES. Dana, welcome. STATEMENT OF HON. DANA ROHRABACHER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate, too, this opportunity to testify today before my colleagues. I am a free trader and Helen and I have some differences on free trade. But then I was a strong supporter of NAFTA. However, as things stand now, I will vote against GATT. The GATT implementing legislation contains provisions that are unnecessary for the United States to be in compliance with GATT. That is a very important point we ought to understand. I will stress it later on in the testimony. That the provisions we see in the GATT draft legislation in terms of patent provisions are not necessary for us to be in compliance with GATT and, furthermore, will diminish the patent protection enjoyed by our citizens. Specifically, I am opposed to section 08 of the GATT draft legislation that changes the patent term from 17 years from grant to 20 years from filing the patent application. This provision, if it is not removed, will mean that I will not be supporting GATT. At this time, a growing bipartisan coalition is demanding this fix. It includes Norman Mineta, George Brown on one side, Newt Gingrich and Bob Walker on the other, as well as many other Democratic and Republican colleagues. Sliding this dramatic change in our patent laws through as part of GATT is underhanded, if not deceptive. It will cost the individual inventor and it will be a windfall to big business, foreign and domestic. An unholy alliance between big business here and Japanese interests are trying to weaken our intellectual property protection. And basically, as far as I can see, it is the big guys taking from the little guys. This policy, as far as I am concerned, is a total sellout, a surrender that I believe can easily be recognized by the actions which Mrs. Bentley just mentioned by Commissioner of Patents, Bruce Lehman, the agreement he made with the Japanese Commissioner of Patents. I have a copy here of that agreement. And in it, we exchange a major reduction in our patent protection for our inventors for a 2-month extension for filing a Japanese language translation. Not only has Mr. Lehman exceeded his authority, but any casual observer can see that he has traded away a valuable asset for nothing more than a bowl of pottage. I received a letter from the Intellectual Property Owners Association urging me to support patent harmonization language as proposed by the administration. All but a few of those listed on the İPO letterhead were large multinational corporations who are users of new technology. No wonder they support the so-called patent harmonization. They, like the Japanese, will benefit from ripping off the rights of small companies, universities, and inventors. Let me further state that this is not a new issue. Over 25 years ago, Congress considered and rejected the 20-year-term filing and other recommendations from President Johnson's Commission on the Patent System. But this time, foreign interests and multi nationals are using the GATT as a stealth vehicle to achieve their objectives. The powers-that-be seek to change our system to be like the international norm. But who is going to benefit by that? Weakening our patent system helps foreign competitors and makes us less competitive as a nation. Our current system is based on over 200 years of patent system development. It has made the United States the leader in a number of influential patents and created an abundance of wealth for our Nation. The hope that a revolutionary patent will recoup a large return to the inventor provides our Nation with a ready source of revenue and venture capital and thus accomplishes more good than all the Government sponsored jobs and other industrial policy schemes could ever hope to do. If we take away this protection, what we are doing is leaving this to the Government to sponsor this type of research and development, or at least taking away the source that exists today. This so-called harmonization scheme will thus dramatically cut the amount of money investors are willing to devote to American research and development. Most disturbing is that the proposed changes-I want to emphasize this, are not mandated by the Uruguay Round Agreements. Patent harmonization is thus an unnecessary poison. It is not required for the United States to be in compliance with GATT. According to article 33 of GATT, a patent must have a minimum term of 20 years measured from its filing date. The current U.S. patent law has that patent term of 17 years measured from when the patent is granted. Therefore, if we look at this requirement, we can fulfill our compliance with GATT by changing U.S. patent law so that the patent term is 17 years from grant or 20 years from filing, whichever is longer. I would like to have a member of my staff give to the members of the subcommittee a copy of the actual language of the Uruguay round, what we have agreed to. And it says the term of protection shall not end before Mr. HUGHES. We have that in our packets. Mr. ROHRABACHER. All right. It says what we have agreed to here and what is being proposed. Mr. HUGHES. We already have that. Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much. And finally, what we are suggesting will put us in compliance with GATT, without having to make this major change. As stated, this is not an either/or situation. I spoke personally to Mickey Kantor about this, and he said "You have got to accept this or you have got to reject all of GATT.” That is not the situation here. GATT does not necessitate the whittling away of our historic protection of the inventors. GATT should not be used as a legislative vehicle for such a dramatic change in our patent law. I will end my testimony at this point, but I will address for the record of what I think is the most important point to be made here. We do not need to use GATT as the vehicle for this change. I believe it is not a proper way to make these changes. It is not necessitated. I and many other of your colleagues, Democratic and Joint Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Intellectual Property and Judicial Property of the House Committee on the Judiciary and the Subcommittee on Patents, Copyrights, and Trademarks of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary Keeping U.S. Patent Protection By Dana Rohrabacher I am a free trader, and was a strong supporter of NAFTA. However, as things now stand I will vote against GATT. The GATT implementing legislation contains provisions that are unnecessary for U.S. compliance with GATT, and will diminish the patent protection enjoyed by our citizens. Specifically, I am opposed to Section 08 of the GATT draft legislation that changes the patent term from 17 years from grant to 20 years from filing the patent application. If this provision is not removed, I will continue to oppose GATT. At this time, a growing bipartisan coalition is demanding this fix. Sliding this dramatic change in our patent laws through as a part of the GATT, is underhanded if not deceptive. It will cost the individual inventor, and is a windfall to big business, foreign and domestic. An unholy alliance |